PSA: OS X 10.9 appears to run on any Mac that can run OS X 10.8

Breaking with recent tradition, Mavericks won't drop support for any older Macs.

Want all of OS X 10.9's new features? As long as you're currently running 10.8, you'll be fine.

Following yesterday's announcement, Apple has posted a beta build of OS X 10.9 (codenamed "Mavericks") to its developer site so that said developers (and interested parties with a developer account) can download it and begin testing their applications. Historically, these early developer previews haven't looked or run exactly the same as the final versions of the software. However, the system requirements—and thus the list of Mac models that will be supported by the new release—tend to remain the same from the first beta to the final release (with very few exceptions).

Assuming that this continues to be true for OS X 10.9, one MacRumors forum poster has outed the system requirements for Mavericks. Breaking with recent tradition, the list appears to be identical to the compatibility list for OS X 10.8:

Each recent OS X release has dropped support for a fairly wide swath of older Macs: OS X 10.6 dropped support for PowerPC Macs, 10.7 dropped support for Intel Macs without 64-bit CPUs, and 10.8 dropped all Macs that didn't support 64-bit EFI. According to this early list, however, any Mac that runs 10.8 should be able to upgrade to 10.9 when it comes out in the fall.

It's worth noting that not all of the listed Macs support all of OS X 10.8's features (AirDrop, which requires specific Wi-Fi capabilities, is one of the most prominent), and the same may continue to be true of some of OS X 10.9's new additions. However, users whose four, five, or even six-year-old Macs (in the case of the 2007 iMac) are still chugging along will doubtlessly appreciate the ability to run Mavericks without dropping at least a thousand dollars on new Mac hardware.

You also have to keep in mind that with the new yearly release cycle they will infuriate their users if they obsolete too much equipment too quickly. Also, with the trend of carrying over iOS features there should be little reason for the massively more powerful Macs to be obsoleted. In fact, hopefully they will become more efficient at using the older hardware.

Well, dropping support is the price to pay for a leaner OS. I have 2 macs that didn't get 10.8 ML and I am over it now. Plus both the older macs got handed off I am hopeful that security updates for OSX continue for 3 years from release. This would mean 90%+ of macs would be supported for at least 6 years.

Anyone know what the official support cycle is? The last 10.7 Lion update was in Oct 2012. There have been updates to Safari & Java etc since then but none to the OS itself.

Looking forward to finally having working full screen on multiple displays on my MacBook.

Oh Gods yes! I have three displays hooked up to my Mac Pro, and if I fire up an episode of 'Taggart' on one screen (in Quicktime Player*) and hit the fullscreen button then I lose the use of the other two screens.

Interesting. Part of the general slowing down in the increase in power of desktops, and the new emphasis on saving power - or doing more with the same power. Learning a lot of lessons from mobile OSes.

Hypothetically, a future OS N could be so efficient that it would run on computers that couldn't run OS N-1.

Phones are where the mad innovation is now, with computation speed almost *doubling* every year, and radical experiments in UI changes rolling out to millions of people within *weeks* if not days. I don't think desktops ever changed this fast in terms of both software and hardware.

Yes, I too am looking forward to the multi-display update that Apple has FINALLY addressed. That being said, Mavericks? Seriously? Coming from a branding leader like Apple, that name is just terrible. If they want to go California themed there are a ton of better names than that one. Or, I don't know, call it OS11

Oh Gods yes! I have three displays hooked up to my Mac Pro, and if I fire up an episode of 'Taggart' on one screen (in Quicktime Player*) and hit the fullscreen button then I lose the use of the other two screens

Errrr, wait. Why would anyone want to dedicate an entire screen to a tv show and continue working on the other two? If you're not watching, you don't need full screen, and if you're looking intently, you don't need the other two. And otherwise, surely you can max the view window and take the couple of pixels you lose for the menu bar for granted?

You really can't imagine that someone could possibley watch TV and work at the same time? You've never sat on the couch with your laptop open on your lap?

Maybe you just want to watch TV and have your email open on another screen in case something comes in.

EDIT: Why do you feel the need to criticize someone who actually wants to use the multiple screens on the multi-screen setup. There might have been some logic or even a technical reason why this didn't work the way a lot of people wanted on Mountain Lion, but it hardly seems logical to take the position "you shouldn't want all your screens on at the same time".

I was bummed I couldn't get 10.8 on my MacPro 1,1 but 10.7 works well enough. However having dual monitors the multi monitor support of 10.9 will be missed. I've solved most of my issues with SecondBar and BetterTouchTool but it's always nice to have native support.

Oh Gods yes! I have three displays hooked up to my Mac Pro, and if I fire up an episode of 'Taggart' on one screen (in Quicktime Player*) and hit the fullscreen button then I lose the use of the other two screens

Errrr, wait. Why would anyone want to dedicate an entire screen to a tv show and continue working on the other two? If you're not watching, you don't need full screen, and if you're looking intently, you don't need the other two. And otherwise, surely you can max the view window and take the couple of pixels you lose for the menu bar for granted?

You've missed the point spectacularly.

Instead of Quicktime Player substitute *any other app that can go fullscreen*. Safari, Mail, iTunes, whatever. If I have an app running fullscreen on one screen that doesn't mean I only want to be looking at that app and I no longer care about what's happening on the other two screens.

Yes, I too am looking forward to the multi-display update that Apple has FINALLY addressed. That being said, Mavericks? Seriously? Coming from a branding leader like Apple, that name is just terrible. If they want to go California themed there are a ton of better names than that one. Or, I don't know, call it OS11

Using Mavericks is just weird. When I hear that I think Shark Tank billionaire Mark Cuban's Dallas basketball team. Others think of Tom Cruise and film/tv. If design is about feeling, Apple poorly considered how "Mavericks" would make users FEEL. If they have to tell users (even California natives) it's a surfing destination, they have failed.

It doesn't so much make me feel stupid, as it makes me feel OLD. It's weird to realize that Top Gun came out the better part of three *decades* ago; and that there are two whole generations out there now who don't get all the jokes and only know Mavericks as the surfing spot/competition.

Well, there is no real technical reason not to support these older Macs so they probably figured why not.

No technical reason other than progress. Sure they could have released something that would have run on 32 bit processors and have the hybrid that Snow Leopard was. Or everyone else can have a faster computer because of the tighter programming. Or maybe you want to be stuck with a max of 4GB of ram? Or even 640k back in the day. Progress is good. They didn't obsolete it too quickly, recent was the EFI 64 bit so they can make the programs go the way they want and still keep everyone happy. Progress is good. Is Snow Leopard giving you a rash or something. It works for many just fine. In fact it will still play Starcraft and Diablo 2 and all the PPC games with rosetta. Cheers.

Yes, I too am looking forward to the multi-display update that Apple has FINALLY addressed. That being said, Mavericks? Seriously? Coming from a branding leader like Apple, that name is just terrible. If they want to go California themed there are a ton of better names than that one. Or, I don't know, call it OS11

Using Mavericks is just weird. When I hear that I think Shark Tank billionaire Mark Cuban's Dallas basketball team. Others think of Tom Cruise and film/tv. If design is about feeling, Apple poorly considered how "Mavericks" would make users FEEL. If they have to tell users (even California natives) it's a surfing destination, they have failed.

Apple has used California-themed names before. Lombard and Pismo come to mind.

And to not know about Mavericks is just culturally ignorant. I'm no surfer, but I know about it. For that matter, I don't follow soccer, baseball, or cycling, but I know what the World Cup, World Series, and Tour de France are. Mavericks is pretty much the equivalent to any of those.

Mavericks isn't just a place. It's also an event. It's the equivalent of the World Cup, World Series, Tour de France, Superbowl, Wrestlemania, Stanley Cup, Monte Carlo Grand Prix, or whatever. Even if you're not a sports fan, even if you don't know the winners of each from year to year,to be completely oblivious to the existence of all of these is to be ignorant of the culture of those around you.

Mavericks isn't just a place. It's also an event. It's the equivalent of the World Cup, World Series, Tour de France, Superbowl, Wrestlemania, Stanley Cup, Monte Carlo Grand Prix, or whatever. Even if you're not a sports fan, even if you don't know the winners of each from year to year,to be completely oblivious to the existence of all of these is to be ignorant of the culture of those around you.

Given that I've heard of all of those events *except* Mavericks, I have to say you're wrong.

Yes, I too am looking forward to the multi-display update that Apple has FINALLY addressed. That being said, Mavericks? Seriously? Coming from a branding leader like Apple, that name is just terrible. If they want to go California themed there are a ton of better names than that one. Or, I don't know, call it OS11

Andrew Cunningham / Andrew has a B.A. in Classics from Kenyon College and has over five years of experience in IT. His work has appeared on Charge Shot!!! and AnandTech, and he records a weekly book podcast called Overdue.